Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Eric Martlew in the Chair]

Clause 3

Risk management

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Martlew: I remind the Committee that with this we may discuss new clause 7Definition of high flood risk
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure by regulations that local development frameworks must develop a definition of an area as being high flood risk.
(2) The Secretary of State must consult all interested bodies as the Secretary of State may determine..
New clause 8Definition of high flood risk (No. 2)
(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 70, after (b) insert
(c) For all applications within high flood risk areas, the local planning authority may cite high flood risk as grounds for refusal..

This is to ensure that the Secretary of State sets up regulations to ensure the local development frameworks define certain areas as high flood risk, with amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act to ensure it is applied.
New clause 25Flood risk areas
(1) The Environment Agency shall carry out an assessment of the whole of England and Wales to determine which areas of land are at risk from flooding, and it shall determine these as being flood risk areas.
(2) For the purposes of this section, an area of land shall be designated as a flood risk area if
(a) there is evidence of it having flooded in the past;
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), an area shall be deemed to have flooded if water has rested on the surface of the land, or just below the surface;
(c) the local planning authority, or the Environment Agency after consultation with the local planning authority, are of the opinion that building on a section of land would be likely to increase the risk of other pieces of land flooding as a result of water displacement; or
(d) having consulted with the local planning authority, the Environment Agency reasonably believes that the area might be subject to flooding in the future.
(3) If an area of land is designated as flood risk, the Environment Agency shall submit a formal objection to any medium or large-scale planning application which is proposed for that land.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a planning application shall be designated as being medium or large-scale if it involves the building of more than 10 houses, or if it involves the building of a public, commercial or industrial unit covering larger than half an acre in land area..

David Drew: What a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew, with your knowledge of flooding. You will not be calling me to speak too many times, for sure.
I said in the previous sitting that although I am sympathetic to new clause 25, it is widely drawn, as I think that my hon. neighbour from Tewkesbury would accept. I was making the point that the difficulty with development in the Severn vale is that the River Severn, being such a mercurial river, will inevitably change its course, causing all manner of problems over where to locate housing and employment development. The difficulty is that historically, as my hon. neighbour from Cheltenham will know, the answer always seems to be development in the Severn vale. That might be highly questionable, because we know that it is an increasingly risky place for development, as we have seen from what happened in 2007.
Even if we were to encourage development outside the Severn valein the Cotswolds, where I would like to see more development, or the Forest of Dean, both of which are the slowest growing parts of Gloucestershirethe difficulty is that the water will run off the hills and come down into the Severn vale. We are damned if we do and damned if we dont. We have a real problem over how we develop parts of our countryside, and that is why this is a worthwhile debate.
I will offer some definitive explanation from my constituency, as both colleagues from Gloucestershire who preceded me in the debate used examples from their constituencies. A number of us in the constituency opposed development in a place called Ebley, which is not far from where I live in the Stroud constituency, on the basis that there was likely to be consequential flooding down the River Frome, which is a tributary of the River Severn. We were pooh-poohed and told that the measures that would be put in place would be such that the loss of greenfield land and of meadow land, which has traditionally acted as a water reservoir by sucking up water in times of surplus, would not be a problem. Modern technology is such, we were told, that we would be able to come up with solutions on development, and so it proved.
The problem is that since that time, downstream in Bridgend and Stonehouse, where I happen to liveno one would pretend that the area has not been flooded in the past, and the mills dotted all around the area show that water has been a crucial requirement of everyday life since the 18th century and even beforethe poor people living there have sadly been flooded badly, first in 2007 and then every year since. I cannot prove that that is the result of development, because I am not a water engineer and have no specialist insight into cause and effect, but I refer to consequential flooding, which is what the new clause is all about, as something that really should matter.
I will conclude with two points. First, if there is evidence that a development has caused problems elsewhere, that should be taken as seriously as the development itself being regarded as a causation factor in flooding. Secondly, we must not time-limit this, because often the problems are of incremental duration in the sense that one will not necessarily get an immediate impact from a developmentit takes some time. The problem is we have used so many of our important water storage facilitiesone could argue that that has been happening through timethat the matter has become critical. I would always argue that it is not the development itself that matters; it is where the impact of the development will be felt. That is something we should examine.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said. He has apologised to me for not being in the roomit is not because I am speaking, but because he is elsewhere dealing with the problems of Ethiopia, which are somewhat different from those that we face in Gloucestershire. His new clause is useful.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister say how we can get fairness for people who have not flooded historically, or who have flooded periodically but now face regular flooding? How can they get greater protection and some justice from the system? It might well be that we have to learn some lessons and be much more careful about where we develop. That will cause huge problems, not just in Gloucestershire, in terms of the Severn vale, but perhaps all the way up the country.

Martin Horwood: I am warming to the hon. Gentlemans theme. Does he agree with the thrust of new clause 8, which is that one of the crucial powers that can help to tackle the issue is the clear power for local authorities to refuse planning permission on the grounds of high flood risk so that they can deal with some of the things he is worried about?

David Drew: I like giving powers to local authorities as long as they use those powers purposely. I would blame my own local authorityStroud district councilfor causing problems because it chose to develop somewhere despite warnings. I am afraid that local authorities cannot have it both ways. If they want that responsibility, they will also have to take the blame when they have chosen a particular site against expert advice. It might well bethe Minister might want to dwell on thisthat the powers of the Bill will enable the Environment Agency to ensure that it is listened to and its advice is acted upon. Too often what has happened in that past is that either the Environment Agency has been ignored or it has not been brought into the decision-making process at all.
This is an important debate. I have concentrated on new clause 25, because that is the most widely drawn of the new clauses, but this is a problem from which we cannot escape, and I hope the Minister will give us some elucidation on how we can take forward sensible development. None of us are against that, but we must ensure that if mistakes are made, people are able to get some protection from the consequences of those mistakes. More particularly, we need to learn from what we have done wrong in the past and prevent undesirable development from occurring in the wrong place.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Martlewit is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Despite the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I congratulate him on new clause 25 and his drafting ability. I will later consider its contents.
I was not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham about new clauses 7 and 8. My concern with the drafting is that anyone who was deemed to be living in a high flood risk would probably be incapable of finding any insurance cover or of selling their home. I am very concerned about the purpose of his new clauses in that regard.

Martin Horwood: I am extremely puzzled by the hon. Ladys objection to the use of the wording high flood risk because it is taken directly from Sir Michael Pitt and is used in the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, which talks about determining such areas as flood risk areas. In fact, our proposal is less prescriptive than his.

Anne McIntosh: I shall move on to the context in which that phrase is contained in new clause 25, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with what I say.
I believe that PPS25 should be revisited on the basis of whether it was the intention to have a proscription or moratorium on building on areas at risk of flooding, although not necessarily floodplains. Recommendation 18 of Sir Michael Pitts review states:
Local Surface Water Management Plans, as set out under PPS25 and coordinated by local authorities, should provide the basis for managing all local flood risk.
The progress report published by the Government last December sets out where we are with the most recent editions of those plans. The progress report states that £9.7 million has been allocated to 77 local authorities at risk from surface water flooding. I am sure the Minister will accept that that is a small amount to be divided among 77 local authorities[Interruption.] He will not escape any earlier even though he is feeling the cold.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is not an insignificant amount of money and it has been focused, through an open application system, on places at the highest risk. I know the hon. Lady will recognise that it is not the only money that we have put into flooding.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for the Ministers intervention.
A lot of the debate over the general aspect of risk management in the clause comes back to the element of risk and how risk is quantified. The risk of one in 1,000 years in the constituencies of Copeland and Workington is on the scale of an act of God. It would be difficult to prescribe the way in which to cope with that in any legislation.
It is my firm belief, however, that we can do a lot more with regard to new developments putting existing developments at risk. For example, it is inappropriate to build 300 houses in Filey on a field that floods, and is at times of flood permanently waterlogged and saturated, especially as the water flooding off the field has already flooded Filey school and earlier developments. I am surprised that the Planning Inspectorate can agree for that to go ahead.
A number of issues that relate to this matter are not appropriate for consideration here. However, PPS25 could be strengthened. For example, we have established that the Environment Agency should have the status of statutory consultee for major new developments. I believe that PPS25 would be further strengthened if we extended the status of statutory consultee to water companies. We can elaborate on those arguments elsewhere.
In the context of new clause 25, the Environment Agency should carry out the assessment to determine the level of flood risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury goes on to establish in his new clause. I wonder if the Minister will be minded to accept some of our arguments. He might want the provisions to be worded slightly differently, but I think that the new clause is well drafted and fits in with the context of clause 3.
I wish to ask the Minister about the impact assessment in the context of the risk management aspects of the clause. We are told that the one-off costs will be negligible although, under existing provisions, local authorities are already investing £27 million a year by means of local levy. The point I put to the Minister is that page 10 of the impact assessment states:
Any administrative burdens would be borne by RFCCs
regional flood defence committees
which include local authorities and the Environment Agency.
In terms of funding risk management, I put it to the Minister is that it seems that the same people are being asked to pay every single time. The Minister is on record as welcoming the levy provisions and, indeed, they are extremely important if clause 3 is to work effectively. However, will he share with us some of the concerns that were probably raised at the time of consultation, particularly about what the cost of the administrative burden will be?
I understand that the benefits of individual risk management projects are reviewed constantly by the Treasury through the Green Book, and that the risk can be reduced in certain situations, which are set out on page 14. However, will the Minister respond to my concerns that their preferred option of 2(a) in the impact assessment
Extend the scope of the RFDC local levy to allow funding to be raised from local authorities for coastal erosion projects
will put real hardship on those bodies? How does the Minister imagine that clause 3 will be given effect in these circumstances, because I do not believe that the administrative burden is neutral? There is a very real cost to be looked at and, as I say, the same people have to pay it each time. I will be most interested to hear the Ministers comments about new clause 25 and his response to my concerns about the cost-benefit analysis and the administrative burdens that are placed on those bodies that are already finding it hard to raise the funds required in the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I begin by thanking hon. Members for what has been a very good debate on the amendments and clause? I will deal with the issues roughly in the order they were raised, although some of them overlap.
I shall begin by mentioning the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and will then come on to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who started off the debate. My hon. Friend rightly signalled the difficulty of getting the balance right between the needs of business, the need for affordable housing, the need to find the right place for development and the risk of flood. I noted his comments about the responsibilities of local authorities. In a moment, my comments will echo that and I will also talk about the responsibility for implementing PPS25 robustly and effectively right down the whole chain, what progress has been made and what more needs to be done.
It is undoubtedly the case that development plans need to take real account of PPS25. We need to get the strategic flood risk assessments right and ensure they are robust. Across the whole line of spatial strategies, we need to ensure that flood risk management proves to be part and parcel of development planning in any local area or region. I will come on to how we can do that. If hon. Members will bear with me, in a moment, I want to go into some detail on that.
Let me begin by addressing the issues raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I have great sympathy with himindeed, during the floods of 2007, I was in a friends house where the water rose through the cellars. He was not affected as badly as most people, but the whole of his cellar was completely flooded and the water came up into the ground floor. At that point, thank goodness, the water stopped. However, I have seen the devastation that happensone sees it in Cumbria and in Hulland how people are affected by such a situation. So, getting the balance right is very important.
The clause that the hon. Gentleman has tabled would require the Environment Agency to determine flood risk areas across England and Wales and would oblige it formally to object to any planning application in one of those flood risk areas, where it represents 10 or more houses or covers an area of land greater than half an acre.
Areas at risk from river and sea flooding in England are already found in existing national policy in PPS25, which is based on the annual probability of flooding, and mapped by the Environment Agency. Local authorities undertake local strategic flood risk assessments, which build on and refine information in the Environment Agencys flood map and identify areas at risk from all sources of flooding, including surface water flooding, and take into account the impacts of climate change.
The effect of the proposed clause would be to compel the Environment Agency to object to all proposed developments above a specified size in a designated flood-risk area regardless of whether the agency was content that the individual proposal took account of the flood risk, that it would be safe and not increase flood risk overall. It is a categoric proposal that we have here that has no flexibility for the Environment Agency to look at the plans, work with them and put forward suggestions.
In determining the planning application, the local planning authority would still be required to take account of all material considerationssocial, economic and environmentalincluding the issue of flood risk, the flood risk assessment prepared by the applicant and proposals for reducing or managing that flood risk as well as representations and objections received from statutory consultees and other interested parties.
I know that hon. Members will be aware of this, but let us refresh memories of how this is set up to work. I will come to how well it is working and what more needs to be done. Planning policy makes it very clear that flood risk must be assessed at all stages of the planning processregional, local plan and individual planning applicationsto avoid this worry about inappropriate development in areas of risk of flooding and to direct development away from areas at the highest risk. The next stage, regional spatial strategies, should establish locational criteria for regionally significant land uses, including the identification of broad locations, and that should be informed by the regional flood risk appraisal.
The local planning authorities establish specific land use or housing allocations through the development plan documents. They are informed by their own strategic flood risk assessment, and target development to lower flood risk areas wherever possible. The local strategic flood risk assessmentsas required to be carried out by local planning authorities in PPS25in Calder Valley and Isle of Wight are examples that show how our policy approach has played a key role in influencing the core strategies for those local authority areas, so that the most appropriate types of development are at the most suitable locations. In a moment, I will come to an example of where it has gone wrong and what happens in that situation. The core of my argument is not that PPS25 is wrongwe have been reviewing it and improving and will continue to do sobut that we must ensure that the guidance is followed through at all levels. We all have a role to play to push our own local authorities to do that.
People often ask why the Government or Environment Agency allow development to take place in areas of flooding. Why not stop building in those areas? My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned some of the difficulties with that. If we do it in one area, it impacts on another area and so on. It must be done in a well-considered way. We have very strong planning policy in place that ensures that flood risk is properly assessed and taken into account by local planning authorities. The aim should always beCommittee members can hear me say it now, people can read it in this transcript and it is in our PPS25 as wellto locate new development away from flood risk wherever possible. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who cannot be with us for the moment, made the point that Tewkesbury is not the same as London. I know that it is not, but we must accept that significant parts of the country are at risk of flooding. We cannot categorically ban all new development.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con) rose
Martin Horwoodrose

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me just finish my point.
We cannot afford to put that blight on whole communities. MPs come to me and ask, Minister, why has the Environment Agency objected to this development, as it has just killed the centre of my town? So there is a counter-argument.
Pretty much the whole of Hull would be included. We do not have any Hull MPs here today, but I do not think that they would want me to say that there should be no development in Hull whatsoever, because the whole city is affected. Two thirds of Portsmouth is affected. We have no Portsmouth MPs here today, but I am pretty sure that they would be telling me the same. They would want to see the rigorous implementation of PPS25 and it being put into the spatial strategies. Most of London would be affected, including my own flat, as would the east of England. Those are all in areas of high flood risk.
The issue is this: how do we provide the homes and development we need and at the same time reduce flood risk? We need to ensure that, wherever possible, we build where it does not flood, and that when we do have to build in high flood-risk areas, we ensure it is as safe and flood-proof as possible.

Andrew Turner: Does the Minister understand that we are not asking for the Government to force people not to build, but to force them to consider properly the building, which is a completely different issue? Also, there is not necessarily the desire for the level of building that the Government would like to happen. Some people might feel that less would be proper.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I fully understand the hon. Gentlemans point. However, the implications of some of the amendments are to make the Environment Agency have to object, not to work with, not to say, Actually, we can see a way forward here if you will do X, Y and Z, as it has done in other instances. I will come to an example in a moment of where that did not work and explain the action it took.
The hon. Gentleman and I are aiming at the same thing, but I am explaining how we should do that. We carried out a review last year of PPS25, which Ill come to in a moment, and it showed what progress has been made and what more needs to be done. We should be focusing our attention on ensuring that, from the regional level to the local level, PPS25 is adhered to. If there is a case for building in a flood-risk area, everything has to be put in place to ensure that the risk of flooding is mitigated, because we simply cannot ban all development in those areas.

Martin Horwood: The Minister is wrong to say that the amendments are about banning all development on flood plains or in flood-risk areas. Certainly, new clause 8 would simply give a clear power to local authorities, but it does not say that they absolutely have to ban it. There is clear evidence from the Association of British Insurers and others that many of the houses the Government are planning to build are likely to be built in flood-risk areas. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury and I both mentioned spatial strategies because planning inspectors on the ground amending regional spatial strategies or putting in amendments proposed by the Secretary of State are in practice choosing areas that are quite explicitly flood-risk areas. Once they are in the regional spatial strategy there is a huge impetus towards developing those areas, and the Environment Agency cannot object on the basis of anything outside its own competence for main rivers and sea flooding.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. We need to get this right. In the wide objectives we have at a local and national level, he, like me, wants to see development and affordable homes, but they need to fit within the strategies. We need to ensure that they do, and ask questions when they do not, both of local authorities and also more widely along the food chain.
I will explain what happens when that does not work, because I acknowledge the examples that have been given. In some cases, because it is a localised issue, people will say, Why on earth was this allowed to happen? I have an example from my constituency of an area left over from a coal washeries, which has never been flooded and which people are desperate to develop, but the Environment Agency says that it is on a flood plain. It has never, ever flooded, and a few years ago a big hotelier put in an offer to develop it, in a coal-mining constituency. The argument is that that has to fit with the advice, and the Environment Agencys advice must be heeded, or good reasons and measures must be put in place. That is my argument.

Martin Horwood: That is not true.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have not even addressed the remaining issue. Let me come to it because it might help. My point of reference was the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, rather than that tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, which is slightly different.
I refer the Committee to Restormel borough council, which is part of Cornwall council. It is an example of a local authority whose core strategy development plan documents in 2007 were found to be unsound. One of the grounds for that lack of soundness was that a strategic flood risk assessment was not carried out before the core strategy was submitted. Results from the assessment later demonstrated that there were flood risks in the St. Blazey, Par and Mevagissey areas. It was unclear how the identified rural service centres would function and develop in the future. There are opportunities to say that local authorities and development plans are wanting and to object to them.
There is a final buck-stop, which I can see happening. If there is disagreement with the decision of a local authority or Environment Agency advice is completely overridden, I would want to know about it. Also, people can have a judicial review of the decision to see whether it was sound and whether the full process was gone through. I have seen that happen.

Roger Williams: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me turn to the new clauses and I will then give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether I will be able to persuade hon. Members. The hon. Member for Cheltenham has already indicated that he will press for a vote. However, I will do my best.
New clauses 7 and 8 would require that an area of high flood risk is defined in local development frameworks and provide for a local planning authority to cite high flood risk as grounds for refusing planning permission in a high flood-risk area. That is the gist of the new clauses. It is of course important that flood risk is recognised and properly taken into account in planning decisions. I have tried to explain that that approach is already a central component of existing national planning policy.
The Environment Agencys flood map shows areas at risk of river and sea flooding based on the annual probability of flooding as defined in PPS25, Development and Flood Risk. It requires local strategic flood risk assessments to be done by local authorities to build on and refine the information in the Environment Agencys flood map, taking into account other sources of flooding. Similar arrangements are in place in Wales under the Welsh Assembly Governments technical advice note 15.
PPS25 emphasises the strategic approach to flood risk management. It stresses the need to consider flood risk as early as possible in the planning process in an integrated way. The policy makes it clear that flood risk must be assessed at all stages of the processregional, local and individual planning applicationsto avoid inappropriate development.
The SFRA provides the evidence base for preparing local policies in local development frameworks that avoid and manage all types of flood risk to and from development. Those policies should refer to areas of flood risk identified in the SFRA, where relevant. Regulations to implement the European floods directive further strengthen the requirement to produce the SFRA.
If the local authority does not think that it can deliver the housing targets safely, it can take its evidence to the Government office and the regional planning body. The Lincolnshire coast study is a good example of local authorities taking just such a constructive approach.

Martin Horwood: I have to say that the Minister is simply wrong about how that is working on the ground. I have been in planning inquiries where the local authority has argued against a development, but has constantly had the regional spatial strategy quoted back at it and where planning inspectors have spent a matter of minutes in a local area before allocating an area to housing. The Environment Agency has confirmed to me that it does not have powers to refuse or object to planning applications when the flooding is as a result of surface water flooding. The FRA and PPS25 must include all forms of flooding, but the EA advice does not.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To deal with that point directly, if the hon. Gentleman has been informed that surface water flooding cannot be taken into account, that is incorrect.

Martin Horwood: By the EA.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is simply incorrect; it can be. I would be happy to take up that issue. I take the hon. Gentlemans point that he has been in meetings and has seen that it has not been followed through.
Let me come to where we are and to what more we need to do. The situation is not absolutely perfect, but there has been significant progress. It is not just me saying that. I will come to that in a moment.

Anne McIntosh: Pitts recommendation 5 made it clear that there should be a presumption against building in high flood risk areas. I take entirely the Ministers point that the practice guide has been updated, but I think that in the view of many members of the Committee it simply does not go far enough. That is a point of difference between the two main parties. Where the Government persist in wishing to build on areas at risk of, or prone to, flooding, how do they answer recommendation 11 of Pitt:
Building regulations should be revised to ensure that all new or refurbished buildings in high flood-risk areas are flood resistant or resilient?
On a point of information, I am alarmed that the consultation on the building controls has been pushed back from summer 2009 to summer 2011-12. That sets alarm bells ringing. If Pitt is to be followed through, there should be a presumption that

Eric Martlew: Order. Interventions should be relatively short. Thank you. Minister.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think, Mr. Martlew, that we will turn to resilience in subsequent amendments, and I am happy to debate the matter then. The Pitt review shows good progress across a range of issues, but there are areas in which we need to go faster. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that the Pitt update recognises that we have not waited around; we have got on with this work at a rate of knots
Mr. Williamsrose

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me make some progress. I want to speak to some of the points being raised, and I will then take the intervention.
A point was made about the updated planning policy statement. Let me read for the record exactly what the updated guidance, which we constantly keep under review, states in section 5 on key planning objectives:
The aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk.
The matter is in there; the guidance has been strengthened. I understand what the hon. Lady says, that it might not go as far as she or others want, but it has been strengthened. In his review, Pitt agreed that the policy within PPS25 is right and sound and that it is the right approach. He said, however, and I also say, that it needs to be rigorously applied. The point of difference here seems to be whether we take what we have gotwhat has been reviewed and strengthenedand show how it can be taken from the regional level all the way down to the local, and make it work. We all have a responsibility to do that, and to demand of our local authorities and others that they do it.

Roger Williams: The Minister is in a difficult position, and he is trying to have it both ways. I think that understands that we all agree that development should not take place in high-risk areas, but we also know that planning law says that it is difficult for a development plan to say that such and such a development will not take place. The planning phraseology is there will be a presumption against. The Minister is trying to defend that when he knows that we all, and the Bill, should be trenchant on the point that there should be no development in high flood-risk areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, I could not disagree more. The approach that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined would rule out economic regeneration in Hull, in much of the east of England, and in Portsmouth and London. I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I think that what we are trying to push at is to get the process right. We know that it has not been perfectfar from it. Let me expand, to say where we have got to.

Eric Martlew: Minister, we are in danger of repeating ourselves a little.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. I just want to give an update on where we are. Flood risk has to be a key factor in planning decisions, but it is not the only one. That is the important thing. Economic development and local circumstances are important, and the EA acknowledges that it is not in a position to take a view on those things. It is to do with democratic accountability and local accountability. It is for the local authorities, which are democratically elected accountable bodies, to do it. From what has been put to me, it sounds as though people are saying, We cannot get development happening because the EA has objected. I hear that and I also hear the opposite, as I have said. Where that is happening I would like to hear more about it, and we need to push on that as Members of Parliament.
Our evidence is that the process is working in the vast majority of cases and is now working better than when it was introduced. I am not the only one saying that. In more than 96 per cent. of cases where the EA has objected to planning applications on flood-risk grounds, the final decision outcome is in line with the EA advice. Most local authorities85 per cent. of them in Englandhave completed the strategic flood risk assessment as required under PPS25, with most others expected to complete soon. Having said that it is not just my saying this, may I mention what Nick Starling from the ABI said last week in the afternoon evidence session? The challenge was put down early on that insurers will walk away from this issue. I throw that challenge back: that is not what the ABI and its members are saying. Nick Starling said:
Huge steps have been made in terms of planning...we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of planning permission consents given in high-risk areas, so we want to see that continue.[Official Report, Flood and Water Management Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2010; c. 45, Q66.]
I recognise that the process is not perfect and that wrong decisions will be made, or it will not be applied robustly enough. Our jobmine as a Minister and ours as MPsis to ensure that that happens. But we are going in the right direction when the ABI is saying that it has seen the improvement, when I can quote figures that show an independent assessment, and when I can mention the Department for Communities and Local Governments review in June last year showing the progress that has been made, which shows what more needs to be done in applying the measure properly and which I will happily send to Committee members.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the issue of the wrong type of water. PPS25 covers all types of flood risk and is not just selective. I have also mentioned the updated guidance. I think that I have covered every aspect.

Eric Martlew: I am fascinated by this debate, but if we are going to make progress, we should have shorter interventions and shorter responses.

Martin Horwood: I will endeavour to be brief, because we have gone round most of the issues.
I should like to return to the matter of which types of flood risk are included in what. It is clear that PPS25, which I have in my sweaty palm, covers all forms of flooding and it is clear that strategic flood risk assessments and even developers own flood risk assessments should address all forms of flood risk. However, it is not clearcertainly not to the Environment Agency, from staff that I have talked towhether its advice and input into this process has addressed all forms of flood risk. Although it is the expert agency, despite what the Minister has assured me, my strong impression, and its impression at local level, and certainly at regional level, is that it cannot give advice on anything other than main river flooding. For instance, its flood maps are river flooding maps. We do not yet have all the localised data for inundation by surface water.
The area that I mentioned in my opening remarks on the clausethe green area of Leckhampton uphill from the area of Warden Hill, which flooded in the 2007 floodswas affected by surface water flooding and causing a lot of problems. The EA apparently does not feel that it can object to that in planning appeals. So we end up arguing in planning appeals, with the local authority, despite or because of whatever flood risk assessment that it has done, objecting to a proposal, but with the EA having withdrawn its objections as the definitive expert body on flooding, and with the developers quoting another Government policythe regional spatial strategywhich absolutely, clearly allocates an area to housing, despite our having maps from consultants showing large parts of it at flood risk from surface water flooding. Clearly, things are not matching up. I accept that the Minister wishes it was not so and wishes that this should not be the way it works and that strategic regional flood risk assessments should stop such things happening, but the bottom line is that it is not being stopped at the moment. We need something that is clearer and stronger in law to make it clear that at the planning appeal stage, a local authority can produce the kind of maps that we have for Leckhampton, which is near my constituency, and say, Look at this map. It is clearly a high flood-risk area, which is grounds for us to refuse the appeal. The development will not go ahead because the chances are that those houses will flood when they are built and they will make flooding worse downhill.
That is what the amendments are designed to achieve. They are not to rule out all development in flood plains. They are not even designed to rule out all development in flood-risk areas. In cases in which it is proven that a development is inappropriate, the amendments will give local authorities a clear power to trump other ill-informed Government policies such as regional spatial strategies coming down from on high and saying, Regardless of the environmental consequences, this area shall be developed. On those grounds, when the time comesI think next weekI will still be pressing the new clauses to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Flood Risk Management Function

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 9Flood risk management function
The flood risk management function will be scrutinised in accordance with the provisions of the bill by both Houses of Parliament under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.

Anne McIntosh: At the same time as the Bill was published, the Government laid before the House and the Committee the EU regulations entitled the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 No. 3042. As I understand it, the procedure is that the regulations are subject to negative resolution, so I have a series of questions to put to the Minister. It is our preference to consider them as part of the legislation. Obviously, we are able to amend the main part of the legislation, but I presume that we are not entitled to amend the text of the statutory instrument.
I must declare an interest here. I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. An exchange between the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Select Committee made it clear that if the Government had not been able to pass the primary legislation, section 2(2) of the European Communities Act would apply.

Eric Martlew: May I clarify something? If you wish to table a new clause to amend the regulations at this stage, it is possible to do that. Obviously, when it goes to a Delegated Legislation Committee, you cannot make such an amendment. I hope that clarifies the position.

Anne McIntosh: That is most helpful. Perhaps I can find out what time such amendments might be taken.

Eric Martlew: I am sure we can find that out for you.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm whether that procedure has been approved by the European Commission, so we that we know that we are on the side of the angels in that regard?
As I understand it, the regulations were published on 19 November and are in two parts: the explanatory memorandum and the general provision. Will the Minister tell us what the relationship is between the contents of the parts relating to preliminary assessment maps, the duty to identify flood-risk areas through the Environment Agency, the duty to identify flood-risk areas through the lead local authorities, the review of the Environment Agency and all the parts relating to maps? I want to be clear in my own mind as to the relationship between those parts of the regulations and the content of the Bill.
Proceeding to the explanatory memorandum, obviously it is the intention to incorporate the flood-risk parts of the flood directive into UK law. I understand from the public consultation that only 5 per cent. were specifically against the policy proposals. My specific concern relates to page 11 of the explanatory memorandum to the flood regulations, where it talks about the annual costs being within the range of £6.26 million to £6.66 million. Is the Minister absolutely convinced that that is the total, and how will that amount be split between the work of the Environment Agency and the upper-tier authorities?

Eric Martlew: We are debating stand part, not the regulations themselves.

Anne McIntosh: Yes. I think you will find, Mr. Martlew, that the regulations relate to the flood-risk management functions. You will seeit is my understandingthat the regulations are part and parcel of that. Will the Minister clarify those points and explain how that will be the case?
If it is appropriate to do so here, I would like to raise the following issue, which may also be raised later in consideration of the Bill. There is some concern that although it is right that upper-tier county councils should be the flood risk management authority for highways, particularly for SUDS in relation to highways, the planning aspect for new developments, particularly in relation to the discussion we have just had, is the lower tierthe district authority. Is the Minister happy in himself that, in fact, those responsibilities are properly recognised in the Bill?

Roger Williams: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady as she spoke to the clause and, to some extent, to the new clause she has put forward. I say to the Minister that the Bill in general has been very good at ensuring that those powers that have been devolved to the Welsh Assembly are recognised and that powers will be given to the relevant Welsh Assembly Minister or to the Assembly itself. If the Minister replies to the clause and the new clause, he can spell out how the proposal could be made compliant in terms of the devolution Act and the Government of Wales Act to ensure that any flood-risk management function is scrutinised by not only both Houses in this place, but the Welsh Assembly.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In line with your dictum, Mr. Martlew, I will try to keep my contribution short and to the point. I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York for introducing the topic. The directive itself will go through the normal scrutiny. As she rightly acknowledged, we consulted on draft provisions to implement the directive as part of the draft Billclauses 50 to 63published on 21 April.
We were grateful for the many consultation responses received and for the scrutiny of the draft Bill by the EFRA Committee, of which the hon. Lady is a member. We took account of both in bringing forward the measures, which the House has had before it since the Queens Speech, that relate to both the implementing regulations for the directive and the Bill we are debating today. The implementing regulations for the directive benefited greatly from those inputs.
Specific reference was made to the regulations in the written ministerial statement of 19 November when the Bill was introduced, in the Government response to the EFRA Committee report and the response to the consultation that was published. All interested parties, including Parliament, have had an opportunity to scrutinise our plans for transposing the directive. The regulations were scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments in the normal way.
Laying the regulations on the day the Flood and Water Management Bill was introduced provided an opportunity for each of them to be considered by the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, and officials provided clarification to that Committee. It also enabled Members of Parliament more generally to consider both the Bill and the regulations together. If further consideration of the Bill should result in any discrepancy, however unlikely, between it and the regulations, it would be entirely possible for us to amend the regulations accordingly, by statutory instrument with the negative procedure.
Why did we go ahead with that measure? The hon. Lady asked whether the procedure had been approved by the European Commission. As Ministers, we always seek to minimise the risk of infraction, and we know that it would be good to get the regulations in place in a timely fashion so that local authorities and others can get on with the business that the regulations allow them to do, but on a parallel time scale to the Bill. The European Commission will ultimately review whether the directive has been properly implemented, and will take infraction proceedings if it thinks that it has not. Using this way forward has minimised the risk of that, and things are well under way.
On the tiers of authorities, the allocation of responsibility in the regulations is consistent with that in the Bill. On the estimate of annual cost, I do not have that to hand, but if the hon. Lady is happy, I will gladly write to her and other members of the Committee with a breakdown of the cost estimates.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to WAGs role in this, and he is right that we have gone to the nth degree in working with our compatriots in Wales to ensure that this fits. The clause 2(2) regulations on the directive apply to England and Wales, and WAG have consulted on them. If hon. Members do not feel that the procedure is right, there is an opportunity to pray against the regulations. I cannot answer for the powers of WAG Members to do that. If Members prayed against the regulations, we would need to bring the legislation back. I am keen to ensure that the legislation moves ahead in the time scale that we have set for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Coastal erosion risk management function

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a simple question. If there is scope, what role, if any, does the Crown Estate have under the clause? Is it referred to in any shape or form?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am seeking some divine inspiration on the Crown Estate. I had not anticipated a question about that under the clause, but I am sure that the answer will come to me any moment now.

Eric Martlew: Perhaps Miss McIntosh would be happy with a written reply.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Inspiration has arrived. I am pleased to say that the Crown Estate is not a risk management authority as defined by the Bill, but it can be added. We have the power and ability in the Bill to add bodies subsequently that we clearly identify as risk management authorities. We have the most significant players herethose that can easily be defined as risk management authoritiesbut if, over time, things changed, we could add others. The Crown Estate is not currently specified in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for that reply. Will the Minister take the opportunity to write to members of the Committee if there are any other bodies that may fall into that category? That would be helpful.

Martin Horwood: Thinking of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, presumably the Marine Management Organisation might be one such body. Surely it ought to have some responsibility for managing coastal erosion. The hon. Lady might want to add that to her list.

Eric Martlew: Perhaps the Minister could write to the Committee on this matter.

Anne McIntosh: I would be most grateful if the Minister was minded to do that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think the issue might come up when considering subsequent amendments. May I suggest that we deal with who should be identified as appropriate under subsequent amendments? It might then not be necessary to write to the Committee with a list of those organisations, although I am happy to do so. The nature of the matter is that we need the flexibility to change over time. I therefore do not have a definitive list. We have included the flexibility to change the list in subsequent guidance and regulations. We will deal with the issue under subsequent amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Other definitions

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 33, at end insert
(g) any land owners with a relevant interest..

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 114, in clause 6, page 4, line 33, at end insert
(g) Natural England..

Anne McIntosh: The Committee will be aware that landowners have a number of roles to play under the Bill. I am sure that they will be called upon with the increased levy and that many are members of the current flood defence committee. In terms of flood risk management, landowners are first and foremost risk managers in their own right. The purpose of the amendment is to recognise that.
A number of years ago, successive Governments made capital grants available to enable landowners to lay drains and irrigation channels, which they are now maintaining at their own expense. They pay their council taxes and so pay towards the role of district councils. Many in Yorkshire, East Anglia and other parts of the country where internal drainage boards exist pay substantial fees towards their work, which in turn fund in large part the work of the Environment Agency. At every level, landowners have a great role to play in the funding of flood risk management. In earlier debates, we spoke about crop protection where land is waterlogged or saturated and the crops are lost. Landowners can suffer substantial losses in that regard.
The purpose of the amendment is to recognise that landowners are interested parties. We would like to include them in the definition so that they are consulted. I hope that we have identified the right place for that recognition to appear. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will look favourably on the amendment because we are asking a lot from landowners. It would bring them in and recognise them as risk managers in their own right if we added them to the list of risk management authorities alongside the Environment Agency, the lead local flood authorities, the district councils, the internal drainage boardsI am delighted they are in the listwater companies and highway authorities. It is a great omission that landowners are not in the list. Adding them would make it complete.
Similarly, the addition of Natural England would be appropriate and, as can be seen, a lot of names support that. I understand that Natural England is the primary channel of funds for many flood alleviation schemes, in particular for EU-funded money. It seems natural to add Natural England. Obviously, for the sake of drafting, I would like landowners to be included as (g) and Natural England as (h). If we could agree on that, that would be great progress.

Roger Williams: I shall speak to amendment 114, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and others. It would include Natural England among the list of risk management authorities. Indeed, the hon. Member for Vale of York has covered several of the issues that have led me to that conclusion. My hon. Friend has raised the issue of water management and flood mitigation being not only about construction and man-made features, but about the land and using the landscape to ensure that the water that falls on it is not discharged rapidly, but at a controlled rate.
Natural England has among its statutory powers the ability to conserve and enhance existing landscape features and even to create new landscape features. As such, Natural England is an integral part of risk management and should be included as an authority. Indeed, the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association have already developed a protocol with Natural England on coastal protection, allowing some of the coastal defences to break down so that land can be taken back by the sea. That is obviously a delicate issue, but one that has been advanced by the protocol and the close involvement of Natural England. I think that it would be a good idea to include Natural England in the list of risk management authorities.
With regard to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York, I can understand why she would include landowners in the list, because they do manage the risk of flooding. My only reservation is that that would increase the number of risk management authorities by an enormous amount. Indeed, within the Bill there are duties on those authorities that some landowners might not think appropriate for individuals and private businesses. Therefore, I would have a little caution on that. I am not trying to do the Ministers business, but I will say that there are amendments to be considered later that will make it a duty for various organisations to consult more closely with landowners and involve them in that way. I therefore press the Minister to include Natural England, but I would treat the issue of landowners with a little more concern.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Members for Vale of York and for Upminster have tabled amendment 8, which would add any landowners with a relevant interest to the list of risk management authorities, but there appears to be no clear definition of relevant interest. That is an interesting aspect of the matter, and I know that we could dance around that with regard to drafting and clarification, but there is something more fundamental to consider.
To pick up on the points made by the hon. Gentleman, this is not the part of the Bill in which to tackle concerns about the contribution of private property and individual landowners to flood risk. The bodies defined in the Bill are public bodies, including the water companies in their capacity as public undertakers. They have statutory functions and are given powers and public duties. They administer and receive public funding. They are held to account by regulators and pubic law. Therefore, the list is a clear category of organisations. Adding landowners as a class to that group simply would not work in that context, as they are not public authorities. In fact, heaven forfend the burden we would put upon them if we suddenly recognised them as such.
We recognise that there are issues with the contribution of private property to flood risk and flood risk management. We consulted on that in depth under the draft Bill and it was one of the most complex areas. Policy in this area needs further careful consideration, which we are actively undertaking on the back of the draft Bill. It might be best taken forward alongside linked areas, such as changes to IDBs, at a future legislative opportunity. I have signalled previously that we see the need to return and bring forward some of those additional aspects.
On Natural England and the flood alleviation responsibilities, I am informed that what has been said is not correct. However, clause 29 provides a power to add new authorities to the list of risk management authorities. There is good flexibility under the Bill where necessary. Over time, we need to consider whether there are additional bodies that have flood risk management functions. As appropriate, those will be brought forward.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire tabled amendment 114, which would include Natural England in the list of risk management authorities. I understand his point that Natural England is our principal environmental adviser and a source of great wisdom and expertise. I accept the point made by him and the hon. Member for Cheltenham about the need to think about what can be done for landscape biodiversity and so forth and I am sure we will return to that point. However, Natural England currently has no statutory flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. As such, it has not been included as a risk management authority.
As I just mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Vale of York, clause 29 provides for Ministers to make an order that allows responsibilities to be reassigned between authorities or for additional authorities to be listed as risk management authorities. Therefore, if Natural England or another body assumed flood or coastal risk management functions, which is not outside the realms of possibility, it would be possible to list it as a flood risk management authority.
There are two other matters that I would like to bring to the attention of hon. Members in respect of clause 29. First, we are considering whether it would be appropriate to amend clause 29(1) to clarify that new bodies can be added to the list of risk management authorities.
Secondly, we are considering whether clause 29(6) accurately implements the devolution settlement. If an intended reassignment of responsibility was from or to a cross-border risk management authority or another body, it is not clear where the ministerial responsibility would lie for making such an order. Is it with me, the Secretary of State or down the M4? That provision may have to be more precise about when an order under the section should be made by Welsh Ministers and when by the Secretary of State. If further provision is required to clarify that important but technical issue, we will table an amendment on Report.
With those assurances, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Ministers fulsome remarks. In view of what he said and the possibility that we can revisit the matter under a more appropriate clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 6, page 4, line 33, at end add
(14) English risk management authority means
(a) the Environment Agency,
(b) a risk management authority within subsection (13)(b), (c) or (f) for an area that is wholly in England,
(c) an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is wholly or mainly in England, and
(d) a water company that exercises functions in relation to an area in England.
(15) Welsh risk management authority means
(a) the Environment Agency,
(b) a risk management authority within subsection (13)(b), (c) or (f) for an area that is wholly in Wales,
(c) an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is wholly or mainly in Wales, and
(d) a water company that exercises functions in relation to an area in Wales.
(16) Cross-border internal drainage board means an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is partly in England and partly in Wales..

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 44 to 52, 54 to 57, 59 to 61 and 79 to 81.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Due to my obstreperous nature, I hope that the Committee will agree to these essentially technical and administrative amendments, which clarify the position of risk management authorities in relation to the national strategies and guidance for England and Wales. In particular, they relate to cross-border internal drainage boards.
Amendment 43 introduces the terms English risk management authority, Welsh risk management authority and cross-border internal drainage board. English risk management authorities are defined as the Environment Agency risk management authorities that exercise their functions wholly in England, IDBs for a district that is wholly or mainly in England and water companies that exercise functions in relation to an area in England.
Welsh risk management authorities are defined as risk management authorities that exercise their functions wholly in Wales, IDBs for a district that is wholly or mainly in Wales, and water companies that exercise functions in relation to an area in Wales. Amendments 44 to 46 make associated amendments to clause 7. Their effect is that the national strategy will have to specify these English risk management authorities and their functions. The Environment Agency must consult those authorities and issue guidance about how they should exercise their duties under clauses 13 and 14. Although they are technical, the amendments are crucial to the effective operation of the arrangements set out in the Bill. Amendments 47 and 48 have the equivalent effect for Wales.
Amendments 49 to 52 make technical amendments to clause 11 that simplify the drafting of paragraphs (1) and (3), and introduce the concept of English risk management authorities into clause 11(1) and 11(4). Those amendments do not change the meaning of clauses 11(1) and 11(3) in respect of water companies. The concept of English risk management authorities is introduced into clauses 11(1) and 11(4), so that it is clear that these authorities, as defined under clause 6(13) with Government amendments, are bound by the obligations in clause 11. That means they have a duty to act consistently with the England national strategy and guidance and local strategies and guidance in the exercise of their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. They also have a duty to have regard to national and local strategies and guidance in the exercise of other functions that may affect a flood or coastal erosion risk. However, water companies are still treated differently.
Amendments 54 to 57 have an equivalent effect for Wales. Amendments 59 to 61 are further technical amendments in respect of cross-border internal drainage boards, which relate to clause 27 on sustainable development. The amended provision clarifies for cross-border internal drainage boards whether it is the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to whom the duty to issue guidance on sustainable development will fall.
Amendments 79 and 80 make minor technical changes to clause 15 to address cross-border issues. The first two amendments make changes to address the fact that the Environment Agency operates across both England and Wales. Those amendments are needed to ensure clarity as to when penalties will be subject to regulations by the Secretary of State and when subject to regulations by Welsh Ministers. As a result of the amendments, that will be dependent on whether the failure to comply with an information request relates to the exercise of an Environment Agency function in relation to England or in relation to Wales.
Finally, amendment 81 addresses a drafting errormy apologiesrelating to the use of the term authority in the clause, which had not been defined as including the Welsh Ministers. Picking up the point raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, we are striving to ensure that this is absolutely Wales-and-England foolproof.

Anne McIntosh: If we are minded to approve these amendments, I am tempted to ask the Minister, if we table some technical amendments, whether he would be equally minded to agree to them in the spirit of co-operation. Obviously, we do not want to take up too much of the Committees time with these. I presume that they are all being moved together because they relate to the clauses that we are currently considering.

Eric Martlew: Only one is being moved; the rest are grouped for debate.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that. Obviously the Minister is perhaps closer to Wales than Scotland, but I understand that Scotland has gone down a slightly different path in that regard, and in relation to many other aspects of the Bill. We will put our minds at rest that this is a matter about which he does not intend to introduce any technical amendments at a later date.
I presume that the Environment Agency will play the same role in relation to both countries. To avoid any risk of judicial review further down the line, is the Minister convinced that the amendments lay to rest the issue of which is the relevant body and who is empowered to make the regulations?
Is the Minister saying that the regulations will either be laid before the Welsh Assembly for them to scrutinise or, if they are the responsibility of his Department, before both Houses of Parliament so that we can properly scrutinise them in this place?

Huw Irranca-Davies: To the best of my knowledge, I will not table any amendments, and I hope that I will not do so in respect of Scotland, either. As for regulations, we will follow normal procedures in the House. In Wales, the standard practice is to put the regulations before the National Assembly for Wales. The amendments define quite clearly the bodies that we need for cross-border work, which is of interest to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and many others. They give powers to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, the Environment Agency and internal drainage boards to apply the regulations. The regulations have been run around the House and the Welsh Assembly Government, so I can confirm that they are acceptable to both. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire knows, it is important that we have working relationships bolted down properly in legislation.

Eric Martlew: To clarify, the Minister is moving amendment 43 and will formally move the other amendments when we come to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Just to elaborate on earlier remarks on clause 6(7), I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is some concern over paragraph (b), which states that where there is no unitary authority, the county council should be the lead authority for the area. I do not know how much detail I am allowed to go into

Eric Martlew: As much as is in order.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed, I am sure that you will keep a close ear on that, Mr. Martlew. My concern is that if one is looking for examples of sustainable drainage alongside the highway, I have no doubt that the county council is the lead authority in that area. However, if one is considering a planning application for what I would call a SUDSa sustainable urban drainage systemfor a major new development, I have no doubt that the lead authority would be the district council. The district council is clearly the planning authority. As we will be coming on to that debate later, I do not want to have that argument now because we will have plenty of time to debate it when the moment is right.
Is the Minister minded to consider an element of flexibility, so that where there is no unitary authorityin York we have a unitary authority and in North Yorkshire we have the relationship between the counties and the districtswe can write into the Bill that the county council or district council for the area is responsible as is appropriate? That would help the Minister enormously. It is not in the Committees interest to get the backs up of any risk managers or the interested parties in that regard. Self-evidently, the Committee will see of its own accord which is the relevant council.
As drafted, clause 6(7) gives a hostage to fortune in the possible interpretation of lead authority, perhaps leading to a lot of unhappiness where there could be

Huw Irranca-Davies: Joy.

Anne McIntosh: Joy, even.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am always happy to bring joy into peoples lives. I do not want to pre-rehearse any discussions that we might have subsequently, but I applaud the hon. Lady for flagging up the issue under this clause. In the course of the draft Bill and also in recent weeks and months, we have had much good dialogue with the Local Government Association to try to resolve the issue and give some clarity and some reassurance that the Bill is not designed to trample over good working relationships and mechanisms on the ground. I think that we can return to that matter subsequently.
I do not want to walk away from Pitts clear recommendations to give clarity and, in some ways simplicityto where we put the responsibility, but that is not the same as how the measures will work on the ground with partnerships and collaboration. I want to give the hon. Lady that assurance at this point, before we get to more detailed discussions. We want to see the most effective use being made of those organisations at either tier, and also of IDBs and others on the ground. Not only in terms of the Bill, but in the current economic climate, I can see no other way of doing that, because we need to make the most efficient use of taxpayers money in the delivery.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy: England

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 7, page 4, line 37, leave out risk.

See Blueprint for Water submission. Replace risk-based approach with more holistic approach to flood and coastal erosion management.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 88, in clause 7, page 4, line 38, leave out risk.

See Blueprint for Water submission. Replace risk-based approach with more holistic approach to flood and coastal erosion management.
Amendment 89, in clause 7, page 4, line 41, leave out risk.

See Blueprint for Water submission. Replace risk-based approach with more holistic approach to flood and coastal erosion management.
Amendment 90, in clause 7, page 5, line 1, after managing, insert all.

Martin Horwood: I guess that we will have a stand part debate when we have discussed the amendments. Is that correct, Mr. Martlew?

Eric Martlew: Yes.

Martin Horwood: Okay, but I would like to say that clause 7, on the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, is at the absolute heart of the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for having expedited the production at least of the headings of the strategy as it might appear in practice. We were hoping that that might somewhat reassure those of us who are a little worried about the division of responsibilities in the Bill. The original vision that some of us had imagined from the Pitt report, which said that there would be national oversight of all kinds of flooding for the Environment Agency and an equal lead local responsibility for all kinds of flooding for local authorities, and that they would be two clear general and comprehensive responsibilitiesone local and one nationalgot a bit confused when the Bill came out. It seemed to preserve the more vertical split, in which some kinds of flooding were the responsibility of the national bodythe Environment Agencyand some were the responsibility of local authorities, raising the possibility that some kinds might fall between the two and not be picked up by either.
Looking at the draft outline of the national strategy, it is not absolutely clear that those fears have been allayed. There are some questions about whether the outline strategy might simply allocate responsibilities rather than provide national leadership, support and adviceI think those were Pitts wordsfrom the Environment Agency, as the national body. Perhaps we can return to that in the stand part debate.
With your permission, Mr. Martlew, I shall talk about amendments 88 and 89 along with amendment 87, because they would implement exactly the same idea. I referred earlier to a more holistic approach to flood and water management in the landscape, and to trying to accept that flooding is a natural process with which we have to cope, albeit in a largely man-made landscape that now requires active management in a way that the original natural landscape of the country did not. That vision is shared by many organisations, including those involved in the Blueprint for Water campaign, which has set out an inspiring vision. It
advocates a move away from flood defence, coastal erosion control and land drainage that is aimed solely at achieving the greatest cost/benefit in terms of risk reduction even where adverse environmental impacts are mitigated. We believe the focus should be on flood and coastal management that delivers clear environmental solutions. Government policy has taken considerable steps towards this in the Vision and Aims set out in Making Space for Water, the setting of environmental, social and economic targets in the current set of Outcome Measures and reinforced by the Vision set out in Future Water. Nevertheless most FCERM
flood and coastal erosion management
schemes can still be characterised as business-as-usual with environmental targets being met off-site from the real business of building flood defences.
Indeed, earlier I gave the local example of a clear option for working with the landscape and using natural features to control and retain water, rather than the alternative of concentrating entirely on building hard defences in a built-up area and allowing development to go ahead in a natural landscape. That example underlines the fact that we tend to have an entirely risk-based approach and take a hard defence route as the default option, rather that one that is more holistic and ecologically inspired. That is the purpose behind amendments 87, 88 and 89, which seek to talk not about risk management, but in simple terms about flood and water management.
Amendment 90 is slightly different. It is surely the most innocuous and inoffensive of all amendments proposed for the Bill, as it would simply insert the word all. That is simply to clarifywe have the heads of an outline national strategy in front of us, but it still needs clarifyingthat the Environment Agency will have an all-encompassing responsibility for all flood risk. If that is the case, as the Ministers earlier remarks suggested, surely there can be no possible objection to inserting the word all in the clause. That is a really serious issue, because it relates to ground water and watercourses that are not main rivers, which might be deemed to be the responsibility of the Environment Agency, but which, instead, are the responsibility of local authorities.
There was an example in Cheltenham in the appropriately named Brook vale and the neighbouring Oak avenueit was possible in the aftermath of the floods to tell from the addresses what kind of case work was coming in. The people of Brook vale wanted me to see the very small brook in question, which was undoubtedly not a main riverit barely got the top of my shoes wet when I stood in it, as it was only an inch or so deep. It rose 15 feet at the height of the floods because the nature of the watercourse and the blockage in the culvert below it meant that there was nowhere for the water to go, so it rose straight up to fill the available natural valley near Brook vale and went straight into peoples houses, many of which were not even on the Environment Agencys flood risk map. One resident had been told that their house had a one-in-1,000 chance of flooding, when the water went up over the top of the natural landscape features and followed its natural course down the hill, straight through what were then peoples houses in Oak avenue.
Although the brook was only a minor water course, and not the kind of thing that would have been the responsibility of the Environment Agency under the old arrangements for the oversight of flooding, the incident was a serious example of flooding. The water was extremely deep, and lives could easily have been lost. A disabled lady who lived in one of the houses could easily have lost her life if she had been caught on the wrong floor when the huge flood came through. Cars were completely buried in flood water and a huge amount of damage was done. That was a really serious incidence of flooding in my constituency, yet it was not within the current Environment Agencys responsibility.
The Environment Agency is the body that has the expertise, not only in hydrology, but in mapping techniquesresources that local authorities can only dream of in exercising their responsibilities. It also has a vital connection with the Met Office so that in such circumstances, it can combine its knowledge of the landscape and hydrology with predicted weather patterns and map the likelihood of a certain event happening on a certain day.
Pitt made a clear statement on page 35 of his report:
The Environment Agency should progressively take on a national overview of all flood risk, including surface water and groundwater flood risk, with immediate effect.
There is a strong suggestion that we need to get away from the tangle of responsibilities and have one body with a clear oversight role. The risk of the phraseology that is creeping into the Bill and the heads of a strategy we have seen from the Department in the past few days is of a vertical split developing. It is there at the moment.
The Minister responded positively to my questions and comments this morning about the national flood line being a single point of contact. However, I rang the national flood line over lunch and it confirmed that, for the moment, it can give advice about only main rivers and sea flooding. With the planning issues we have discussed, there seems to be confusion over what the Environment Agency can give advice on locally and in planning appeals, not least in the Environment Agency and DEFRA.
After the floods of 2007, many of us found in our constituencies a terrible tangle of responsibilities, with people repeatedly trying to phone organisations. In the example of Brook vale that I have given, it was unclear who was responsible for the culvert and for looking after the watercourse. In some cases, when we pressed to find out who had the legal responsibility for a particular watercourse, the great ghost of riparian ownership raised its head and it turned out that the poor, beleaguered householders had the only clearly defined legal responsibility for maintenance. In an estate called Whaddon in my constituency, the culvert passed hidden from view underneath peoples houses and I suspect that most of them were unaware that it existed. It was only through the good inclinations of the local authority or the Environment Agency that any maintenance was done on some watercourses.
Pitt was right that it is vital that we resolve this issue and address once and for all the creation of a buck-stops-here agency, where the expertise resides on all forms of flooding. That is all that is behind the incredibly simple insertion of the word all into clause 7 under amendment 90. That amendment is incredibly important and I would welcome the Ministers response.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Amendments 87, 88 and 89, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, seek to broaden the national strategy to address wider flood and coastal erosion management, rather than just risk management. That would enable the strategy to address the beneficial effects of flooding on the environment, as well as the negative impacts. However, there is already provision for the strategy to set out how it contributes to the achievement of such wider environmental objectives in clause 7(2)(j).
The Bill includes a duty for local authorities and internal drainage boards to contribute to sustainable development through the management of flood and coastal erosion risks. The Environment Agency already has that duty. It supports new approaches to flood and coastal erosion risk management, including working with natural processessomething we have discussed alreadyand will aim to reduce the threat to people in the property and, at the same time, deliver those greater environmental, social and economic benefits that are consistent with the Governments sustainable development principles.
The Bill also provides powers for authorities to manage flooding and coastal erosion to gain beneficial effects for people and the environment as well as to reduce the harmful impacts of those processes. The national and local strategies will include a statement on how flooding and coastal erosion will be managed to contribute to relevant environmental objectives. They will provide an opportunity for authorities to consider and explain how risk reduction and environmental objectives will be integrated in their area.
The kinds of environmental benefits that we would expect to see and the hon. Gentleman would want to see as a result of this joined-up and integrated approach includethis is not exclusivebetter water quality, better carbon management, and more attractive, ecologically rich and accessible coastal and river landscapes. In saying that, may I just draw his attention to something? I do not know whether he has seen this, but I have a copyplease do not hold me to this preciselyof the first draft outline of the national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. I just briefly want to read into the record from that. Within the context of managing the risks, there are two overall objectives: first, to reduce the threat to people and their property, which is primarily what the risk management focus is about, and rightly so within the Bill; secondly, to deliver the greatest environmental, social and economic benefit consistent with the Governments sustainable development principles.
Having said all that, it is important to recognise that the primary purpose of the strategy will be to manage risk. I will come back to that strategy in a moment. It is also important to note that many of the environmental benefits are associated with water level management, rather than flooding. The constraints of time in this sitting mean that those policy areas will be dealt with in subsequent legislation.
The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire have also tabled amendment 90, which would require the national strategy to set out objectives for managing all flood and coastal erosion risk. At this point, although I recognise how innocuous he says it is, unfortunately we have a problem of a technical nature. The amendment could be interpreted in a number of wayslet me just cite two. It could mean that objectives need to be set out for all different sources of flooding or it could be that objectives need to be stated for each geographical area. I am therefore reluctant to accept the amendment as it could cause unintended confusion in its interpretation. However, I am happy to make it clear that the strategy is, indeed, intended to cover the management of risk from all sources of flooding, except those identified in clause 1(3).
Let me just refer to one other part of the draft outline. The national strategy will set out an overview of all forms of flood and coastal erosion risk management, bringing together the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act and the floods directive with ongoing activities. It will be a high-level publicly accessible document setting out the scale of risk for different sources, explaining the way that risk is managed and providing a framework linked to local strategies and other plans and documents. The national strategy will set out an overview of all forms of flood and coastal erosion risk management and will bring together other pieces of legislation and other aspects that are already in place.
With that clarification, I invite the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, who have raised important points that we have already covered, to withdraw the amendments.

Martin Horwood: On amendments 87, 88 and 89, yet again we have to make a judgment call on whether we think the Ministers good intentions and the strongly sustainability-oriented wording that he uses in his replies should or should not be reflected in the Bill. Such wording is in some places and this was another opportunity to make it more obvious in the Bill, but I am happy to take his remarks in good faith and withdraw amendment 87 and not press amendments 88 and 89.
I am much less convinced about amendment 90. I am afraid that there is a risk here. Pitt said that there should be a national leadership co-ordination and advice role for the Environment Agency on all forms of flooding. The Ministers excuses for not putting the word all into the subsection, which soundedI hope his colleagues will forgive me for thisa little like civil service speak, are really a bit pernickety. To say that it might raise the possibility that we have to include each geographical area seems to ignore the word national, which is at the top of both the document and the clause. Clearly, a national document does not have to address each geographical area in turn. The Minister is now nodding vigorously. Perhaps he wants to intervene on me and reassure me that the word might be included.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Even though we have a technical issue with this, we are trying to achieve the same thing. Let me assure him that I will take this away and have a look at it. If we can get it right, we will try to bring something back. At the moment, there is an ambiguity. Legally, the measure could be interpreted in different ways. If the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurance on that, I will reconsider the matter. We are trying to do the same thing.

Martin Horwood: We are both in the game of trying to remove ambiguities, so I am very happy to accept the Ministers good offices in that respect, so I will not press amendment 90.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I call on the Minister to move amendment 44 formally

Martin Horwood: On a point of order. I am not aware that we have debated the amendments.

Eric Martlew: We have debated them, but they had to be moved formally on the Order Paper. I informed Members at the time.

Amendments made: 44, in clause 7, page 4, line 40, leave out risk management authorities in England and insert English risk management authorities.
45, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out risk management authorities in England and insert the English risk management authorities.(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Roger Williams: I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, at end insert
(b) bodies representing the owners and occupiers of land likely, in the opinion of the Agency, to be directly affected by flood and coastal erosion..

The Bill imposes an obligation to consult with the public. This is too general and could be discharged by simply posting notices in local papers. The Environment Agency should consult with those land managers most directly affected by flooding and coastal erosion, particularly farmers.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 92, in clause 7, page 5, line 16, at end insert
(ba) national registered charities whose aims under section 2 (2)(i) of the Charities Act 2006 include the advancement of environmental protection or improvement,
(bb) Natural England,
(bc) Regional Flood and Coastal Erosion Committees as established under section 22,.

To specifically include third sector environmental and conservation organisations, Natural England and regional flood committees as statutory consultees on national strategy.
Amendment 93, in clause 8, page 6, line 12, at end insert
(3A) The Welsh Ministers must consult
(a) risk management authorities in Wales,
(b) the public,
(c) Welsh national registered charities whose aims under section 2(2)(i) of the Charities Act 2006 include the advancement of environmental protection or improvement,
(d) Countryside Council for Wales,
(e) Welsh Regional Flood and Coastal Erosion Committees as established under section 22..
Amendment 9, in clause 7, page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (9) and insert
(9) An approved strategy or guidance under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament..

Roger Williams: This is an attempt to be helpful to the Minister and to save disappointment and angst later on. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, landowners and managers are instrumental in protecting other land from flooding because it is in their own interests. They do not want their land to flood, so they are keen to see that flooding does not take place at all.
We believe that the agency should consult landowners and managers about the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. When it was first suggested that such an amendment should be tabled, it was said that there should be a requirement to consult with every landowner or manager. I can understand why there could be a problem in identifying every landowner and manager to ensure that they complied with the legislation; I am sure that the Minister will agree. I thought that it was a better idea to have bodies representing owners and managers rather than having the owners and managers themselves. We must do everything that we can to ensure that we get co-operation and compliance with all the interested parties. Those parties will play a large role in achieving the objectives that we set out in the section about consultation. There is a requirement to consult in public, but that is a rather vague and nebulous term. I suppose that the Environment Agency could say that it could consult the public by putting a rather small advert in the corner of a local or indeed national newspaper. However, that is not the point; the point is to encourage engagement and co-operation. Therefore, an obligation on behalf of the Environment Agency to consult landowners and land managers would be a good thing to achieve the objectives that are set out in the Bill.
In the corresponding clause 8
National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy: Wales
there is no obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult. I presume that that obligation would be achieved by regulation in the Welsh Assembly Government. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that issue when he comments on the advisability of consulting representatives of landowners and land managers.

Anne McIntosh: Amendment 115 relates to the discussion and what I thought was the sympathetic hearing that we received from the Minister in relation to our earlier amendment. Perhaps the Minister is right that this is the more appropriate place to make this change.
On any reading of the clause, it is very bland to say that the agency must consult...the public without being more specific. Because of the implications for landowners of many aspects of the Bill, it would be nice to have agreement that it is spelled out that it is owners and occupiers of landso it is landowners and farmers who farm that particular landwho could be referred to specifically.
I would also like to move amendment 9 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, along the lines that we believe it is absolutely vital that both Houses of Parliament should have the right to scrutinise the strategy. Therefore, we call for the approved strategy or guidance under clause 7

Eric Martlew: Order. At this point, you are not moving the amendment; you are speaking to the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: Of course. I am sorry to use language so loosely. I would like informally to introduce the little, humble, modest amendment that I am sure will charm the Minister so much that[Laughter.] Otherwise, I really will get formal.
We believe that the strategy or guidance should only be made if it is laid before and approved by resolutionI think that it is the affirmative resolution and that is why we put it in those terms. So I hope that the Committee and the Minister will look favourably on amendments 115 and 9.
I should also like to draw the Ministers attention to the conclusions of the Select Committee. I would not say that the Government were chastised by the Select Committee, because the Minister is such a nice man that we could not possibly chastise him, but the Select Committee concluded that clarity on the form of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy should be provided in the Bill or through an order-making power subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. The Select Committee further recommended that the Bill provide for the strategy to be reported to Parliament.
In amendment 9, therefore, we are really just following through on that desire of the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, will support the conclusions of the Select Committee, on which he also serves, in that regard.
The Select Committee also recommended that the Department publish details of how the strategy will be prepared and scrutinised, and over what period it will be reviewed. I am not entirely convinced that that issue has been addressed in the clause, so I would be most grateful to hear from the Minister in that regard.

Martin Horwood: I shall speak about amendments 92 and 93, which are being considered in this group. I am attempting to be even more helpful to the Government by sharing with them a source of invaluable expertise and wise counsel. My background is in the voluntary sector, so I am naturally inclined to look to the third sector as a source of expert advice and well informed and well judged opinions. Voluntary organisations, of which there are a huge number relating to environmental, water and flooding issues, are an obvious group of bodies to consult. They should be consulted properly and formally when a national flood and coastal erosion strategy is being drawn up.
We have the National Flood Forum, all the bodies involved in the Blueprint for Water, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Woodland Trust, the wildlife trusts, Froglife, the World Wildlife Fund UKthe list goes on. It is potentially invidious to name in a Bill specific organisations that we should consult. I know from my background in branding charities that their names change from time to time and that it is occasionally difficult to keep track of them.
Luckily, the Charities Act 2006 provides a neat way of identifying precisely which organisations the Environment Agency might care to consult on drafting its strategy. It provides the new heads of charitythe new definitions of charitable activity. It specifies
the advancement of environmental protection or improvement,
which neatly encompasses almost everything in the Bill and a bit more besides.
That was the first piece of legislation I ever dealt with in this place and I assure the hon. Member for Norwich, North that even though it was only a couple of years ago, it seems like an eternity. One gets a number of these things under ones belt in time. It is a useful piece of legislation, which carries a precise definition of environmental organisations. Those charities could easily be a category of statutory consultee for the national strategy. Indeed, the Charity Commission no doubt has those data in easily accessible form and could provide a list to the Environment Agency within a matter of hours. On the geography, postcodes are stored by the Charity Commission, so Welsh environmental organisations would be equally easy to identify definitively.
The amendments would add two other organisations in England and Wales that seem to be obvious and natural consultees. One is Natural England, which has overarching responsibility within Government for looking at the natural environment and advising the Government on it; it seems to be the most obvious consultee imaginable for a truly environmentally sustainable flood risk and coastal erosion strategy. Its equivalent in Wales is the Countryside Council for Wales. I am sure that at some point my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will give me the proper Welsh version of that.
Later, the Bill goes to great lengths to establish regional English and Welsh flood defence committees from the old flood defence committees. However, those are not statutory consultees in the process. Presumably, they are expected to be the principal reservoirpardon the punof informal and voluntary expertise on flooding in particular parts of the UK. It is bizarre that they will not be part of the statutory consultation process.
What we are asking does not open great floodgates, add thousands of organisations or bring in a very complex way of consulting, but it would get away from the vagueness in the term the public, which has been referred to. That term could be used to cover up a lacklustre and half-hearted consultation. If we specifically include Natural England, regional committees and the voluntary sector, we can be sure that the public will hear of any issues arising from future versionsor even the first versionof the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. I heartily commend the amendments to the Minister.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Hon. Members have tabled amendments concerning approval and consultation of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. Amendment 9 would require both Houses to approve the draft national strategy. The Bill already requires public consultation on the national strategy, as well as consultation with the risk management authorities and Welsh and Scottish Ministers, in so far as the strategy affects Wales and Scotland.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State noted that it would be for the Select Committee to decide what it wished to do. The EFRA Committee will, of course, be able to scrutinise the strategy at the same time as it goes out for public consultation. The code of practice on consultation, to which both DEFRA and the Environment Agency have signed up, states:
Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.
That period of time should be sufficient for the EFRA Committee to consider the strategy, it is consistent with the time provided for pre-legislative scrutiny for example, and we would expect such a consultation to be arranged to avoid long overlaps with parliamentary recesses. Similarly, I can assure the Committee that the Welsh Assembly Government are committed, as they always are, to ensuring wide consultation on their draft national strategy.
Providing for formal parliamentary approval of the draft strategy would be disproportionate. In fact, we are confident that the EFRA Committee, which has been rightly lauded today for the work that it has done on this Bill and other legislation, will provide very effective scrutiny indeed. The approved strategy and guidance will in any case be laid before Parliament, providing an opportunity for them to be considered and debated if required.
Amendments 92 and 115 would require third sector environmental and conservation organisations, Natural England, regional flood and coastal erosion committees, and bodies representing the owners and occupiers of land likely in the opinion of the Environment Agency to be directly affected by flood and coastal erosion, to be specified as statutory consultees on the national strategy. The bodies listed in the amendments are already covered by the duty of the Environment Agency to consult the public about the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. The Environment Agency already engages with such bodies as a matter of course during national consultations, and is already duty bound to consult with regional flood and coastal erosion committees in the execution of its flood risk management functions. It is also subject to a duty to secure public involvement through section 23 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
I can go further and give assurances, because I recognise the concern to ensure that the right people are consulted. The question is, how much do we put in the Bill and how much do we put elsewhere? There is an opportunity here because the Secretary of State is allowed to issue guidance directly to the Environment Agency. I think that that is how we can stipulate to the Environment Agency who should be consulted, not simply through normal public consultation, but to say in writing who we think it should be. I do not want to prescribe it here because of the classic risk of saying, These ones are in and these ones are out. The hon. Member for Cheltenham proposed a very interesting idea about the third sector, I have to say. That may be exactly the approach that brings it all together in the Secretary of States guidance and talks about landowners and landowner organisations. There is an opportunity to do it, but it should not be in the Bill, because of the problem of fixing things in stone.
Amendment 93 concerns the Welsh consultation process, and would require Welsh Ministers to consult risk management authorities in Wales, the public, Welsh environmental and conservation organisations, the CCW and the Welsh regional flood and coastal erosion committees on the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. My colleague Jane Davidson, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing, has already made clear her commitment to conducting a full public consultation on the Welsh national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, so that will happen. We are happy to give the undertaking that she can signal guidance to us on matters such as who should be part of that, in the same way as the Secretary of State can issue guidance to the Environment Agency.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire suggested that the Environment Agency might consult by placing small ads in papers and so on. That has not been ruled out, but it needs to go a hell of a lot further than that given the agencys obligations and duties under this and other Bills. Just taking the action to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be being compliant with the code on consultation. We want it to go a lot further. Good points have been made, but we need to find a way to get such things done. Indeed, we have ways that would not bolt down such matters for ever. We need to give the flexibility whereby a future Minister can turn round and say, Well, actually we now have another organisation that we need to bring forward. For all those reasons, such as detailing the degree of quality consultation in England and Wales that the national strategy will receive, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Roger Williams: We have listened to the Minister and, as always, he has sought to reassure us on such matters. He has done that. It would be good if the guidance that he or a subsequent Minister issues to the Environment Agency could be shared with members of the Committee or, indeed, Members of Parliament in general.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I simply intervene to give the assurance that I will certainly share such guidance, and I commit my Secretary of State to doing so. Any future Minister, whether it is me or someone else, will have to read the transcript of my commitment, and heaven help them if they do not honour it.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for so generously reassuring us about such matters.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister for his comments. We have twice put down a marker that landowners should be formally written into the Bill, so he might like to come back to us on that point.
As for amendment 9, perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not correct by saying that what we are seeking to do is disproportionate. Not all hon. Members who wish to be members of a Select Committee can do so. We believe that it is appropriate that regulations or strategies that are adopted in the spirit of openness, transparency and the desire for scrutiny should be considered by a motion tabled by each House of Parliament. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Eric Martlew: We now come to clause 7, page 5

Anne McIntosh: Clause stand part?

Eric Martlew: No. It is hard enough with only one Chairman, not two.

Amendment made: 46, in clause 7, page 5, line 23, leave out risk management authorities in England and insert English risk management authorities.(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to make a small but significant point. The Department was invited by the Select Committee at the drafting stage of the Bill to consider writing a definition of strategy in the Bill. For what reason has the Department chosen not to introduce such a definition? There are definitions on strategy in other legislation. There are precedents for defining strategies and policy statements. The marine policy statement in part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and part 2 of the Planning Act 2008 contain provisions for the Government to produce national policy statements. The Departments attention was drawn to that in two respects so that it could consider giving such a definition. Is the Minister minded to bring forward such a definition at a later date, perhaps on Report, and why was a conscious decision taken not to implement a definition of strategy at that stage?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I refer the hon. Lady to clause 7(2), which contains the steps we have taken to clarify the meaning by setting out what we understand by a strategy:
The strategy must specify...the risk management authorities in England...the flood and coastal erosion risk management functions
and so on. We have tried to set out an indication of what we understand will be in the strategy, although perhaps in a different way to that which the hon. Lady would have wanted. We have tried to go some way in complying with the Committees request.

Martin Horwood: I should like to return briefly to some of my opening comments about the division of responsibilities in the Bill. That is reflected in both the Bills wording and the draft outline flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England. The National Flood Forum, ourselves and others are concerned that there is too much vertical division of responsibility. The Minister has an opportunity now to make clear those points that might have been somewhat buried in the draft outline. The third bullet point for the objectives in the draft sets out what it describes as principlesa risk-based approach, working in partnership and a co-ordinated approach to the management of different sources of flood risk. That one tiny phrase really goes to the absolute heart of this.
If national co-ordination and leadership, which Sir Michael Pitts has called for, is to be shown by the Environment Agency, that is where it will be shown and where the Environment Agency, on all forms of flood risk, can start to give real guidance and direction. That could include a more sustainable or sensitive approach to risk. It could be a more customer-focused approach, and one that was more sensitive to the victims of flooding. That is where that can start to be laid out and leadership can start to be given to local authorities. Perhaps the Minister would like to expand on what he expects to see in that tiny section. Will there just be a couple of paragraphs that will not really provide the kind of national leadership, co-ordination and advice that Sir Michael Pitt was looking for?
I should also like to ask the Minister about two other sections in the draft outline that are relevant to the clause. What are the different roles and responsibilities, and how exactly will they be enforced and monitored? It is not clear that the Environment Agency itself has much of a role beyond setting out that strategy, as there is no clear description of what it will do after being given those responsibilities. What if it comes to the Environment Agencys attention that a particular local authority or flood risk management authority is not performing its task? Is there, hidden somewhere in the Bill that I have not spotted, a clear role for the Environment Agency in launching investigations or trying to enforce the various strategies and national leadership that it sets out in the national strategy? Will that kind of process be set out in the national strategy itself, and how will that work in practice?
Finally, we have been given section 6 of the outline national strategy, which deals with the process for review in time scales, setting out how and when delivery of the strategy will be monitored and revised, but that raises a few questions as well. Who will do the monitoring? If the Environment Agency has national oversight, who will monitor its delivery of the strategy? Perhaps the Minister would like to expand a little on how he sees that working in practice. This might seem like picking out small details of the document that he has given us, but it gets to the heart of some of the concerns many local authorities and observers have that the Bill still does not resolve that tangle of responsibilities or create the single, buck-stops-here responsibility for the Environment Agency that we were all looking for and that Sir Michael Pitt so strongly recommended.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has raised some important points, so perhaps I can expand a little on those and clarify them. We anticipate that the national strategy will go into quite some depth on the principles of the risk-based approach, on work and on partnerships as well. I will just expand on that a little bit in a moment, because the essence of the Bill is getting the balance of people working together right, with agents working together, a co-ordinated approach to the management of different sources of flood risk and sustainability as well. It will go into some depth on that.
The national strategy will not prescribe local flood and coastal erosion risk management decisions. It will provide the framework in which they can be made in a consistent manner between areas. We know that if we make the wrong decision in one area, it will impact negatively on another area, as has been mentioned before. It will also ensure that the investment of public fundsthey are significant funds now, and they will have to grow as wellin flood and coastal risk management is carried out equitably. That is an important principle of how we carry out the work, seeking maximum benefits, so that the national strategy will ensure that that is done. Local strategies will need to reflect that element of the national strategy, and decisions will need to be made in the context of wider risk to ensure that decisions made in one area do not impact negatively on another and are not compromised by a lack of investment in one area compared with another.
In response to the hon. Gentlemans question, the national strategy will provide the co-ordination required for the effective management and partnership management of flood and coastal erosion risks, while enabling the development of solutions that genuinely meet local needs. Who will monitor that strategy? That is a fair point. Ministers holdthe Secretary of State and I holdregular performance reviews with the Environment Agency and this will form part of that; it will include the delivery of the national strategy as well. That is where people are currently held to account. We have still got to see more of this fleshed out, but that is our direction of travel. The strategy will be held to account, and it will get away from the very rigid vertical approach and allow joined-up working and flexibility as well. However, it will be set in that national parameter, so that we have equity and do not have unintended consequences in other areas. It will also allow that element of local partnership work as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy: Wales

Amendment made: 48, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out risk management authorities in Wales and insert Welsh risk management authorities.(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Nia Griffith: I am keen to speak on the clause because my constituency is surrounded on three sides by the sea and has some very significant coastal erosion. It is an extremely important area that we need to consider. What I am going to say has some relevance to clauses 9 and 10, which other hon. Members may wish to pick up later on.
First, I should like to ask about the difference between clauses 7 and 8. In clause 7, there is a monitoring role for the Environment Agency, while that appears to be missing from clause 8. Welsh Ministers do not seem to have a monitoring role for that strategy. How it is envisaged that the strategy will be monitored?
Clause 8(2) contains the detail of exactly what the flood and coastal risk management strategy should consist of and what should be done. Under subsection (2)(e), the strategy must specify how and when the measures are to be implemented.
I should like to place my comments in the context of a plain-speaking report produced by the Welsh Audit Office in October 2009. It found that progress had been slow in respect of the Welsh Assembly Governments new approaches programme, which brings together stakeholders with interests and responsibilities for the coastline. The report is critical, citing insufficient capacity for the programme, which, it says, was evident from the Welsh Assembly Governments response to the Pitt review. It cites leadership issues and lack of clarity about the aims of the programme and fragmented and poorly co-ordinated management processing systems. That is extremely worrying, because although those comments are being made about the Welsh Assembly Government, they may apply to some of the lead local flood authorities. Although some of them might perform outstandingly, others might not be so well equipped to perform their tasks.
Our constituents want to see progress on the issue but they are extremely worried about flooding and coastal erosion. How can the provisions of clause 8and those under clauses 9 and 10, about which Member might want to speak laterbe strengthened? I appreciate the difficulties involved in dealing with a range of strategies across the countryfor example, it might be difficult to define dates by which something must be donebut the current situation is open-ended, so we need some assurances that things will happen: people are impatient to make progress.
The position with catchment areas has been explained, but the same can be said of the coast: one area can easily impact on another. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the issue of dredging in our part of the world, where activity on one part of the coast can have serious consequences for another part, with different lead flood authorities being involved. Moreover, given that some authorities might be in England and others Wales, with different time lines, different strategies and different implementation times, there seems to be worrying scope for drift.
We want the most effective action to be taken, so will the Minister clarify how that will be achieved without the relevant wording being in the Bill?

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to follow the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady identified issues that go to the heart of clause 8. My concern is that different guidance and strategies could be issued by this place and the Welsh Assembly. What are the implications for cross-border areas, and who will arbitrate disputes that might arise from the differing guidance?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli reminds me that she and I discussed flooding issues affecting her constituents when I was a Wales Office Minister.
My hon. Friend asked why the Environment Agency has no monitoring role under the Welsh strategy. That is to do with slight differences due to devolution. The strategy will be developed in Wales by Welsh Ministers, who will also be responsible for monitoring and implementation. However, the Environment Agency will need to report, and under clause 18(2), that report will include a strategy. It will report both to Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Secretary of State in England, so they will monitor progress effectively.
I hear what my hon. Friend says about the worry about drift and the consultation spreading. I am sure that our colleague, Jane Davidson, will have heard what has been said in Committee today, and will want to guard against that. In fact, I can probably assist a little as well. The Welsh Assembly Government consulted, as we did, on the draft Flood and Water Management Bill. There was strong support in Wales for the production of a national strategy and for the retention of a strong strategic role for Welsh Ministers. That ties in with the way that Welsh devolution has evolved.
In taking forward the comments arising from their consultation, Welsh Ministers felt that the best way to meet the needs of the people of Wales was for them to prepare a national strategy for Wales. A summary of the consultation responses, as considered by the Welsh Assembly Government, is available on the website, and details of the outcome of the consultation in Wales are contained in the joint Government response to the consultation on the draft Bill, which is available on the DEFRA website.
In terms of timing, the Welsh Assembly Government have already begun early planning work for the national strategy, and they intend to publish a draft for consultation this spring. Publication of the final strategy will take place later this year, dependent on a number of factors, including the length of the consultation, the nature of the response, and what, if any, changes are required as a result of that consultation. However, I know that my hon. Friend will make representations, not only about the consultation, but about ensuring that it takes place in a timely manner.
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked, quite rightly, who would be the arbiter of the disputes. That is classic territory for me, as a former Welsh Office Minister and as a DEFRA Minister. How do we deal with such cross-border issues? The crux of the matterwe went through this in the Marine and Coastal Access Billis that the two Governments will have to work together. They will have to co-operate fully on the matter and consult. There is no arbiter. There are Welsh Assembly Government Ministers, the Secretary of State and me. The nature of that match is established in the work, relationships and, when necessary, underpinning protocols. However, I do not think that protocols are needed. We have put the strategies and the cross-border arrangements in place and we need to ensure that they work effectively.
I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and the hon. Member for Vale of York the assurance that they need. I think that the clause will be a good one, and the Welsh Assembly Government Ministers will deliver a good strategy to meet the needs of the Welsh people.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (David Wright.)

Adjourned till Thursday 14 January at Nine oclock.